I tried the demo a few months after the release because all of my friends were raving about it, every review I read said it was amazing so I thought I'll download the demo (reason for the demo instead of rushing out to buy it like I usually do is because I didn't like the look of it). I am now glad I played the demo because I hated it. I dunno what it was I hated about it but I was having no fun so I didn't buy it. Annoyed me a bit because I seemed to be the only one who disliked it which meant there was something wrong with me, not the game. Ahhhh well guess it wasn't meant to be.

Ah, I did enjoy Bioshock. Unfortunately, like many I expect, I found it was far too easy though. In the end I just ended up running around with my souped-up wrench that could freeze and shatter enemies (even Big Daddies).

I liked the final boss battle. It was a return to the 'old skool'; you against a super being that you had to dodge and pummel relentlessly.

There are two bits of the games that always turn me off. The first is Hephasteus, where you have to assemble the bomb. I got stuck, lost there for ages when I did my original review and it was also where I first did the 'attack a big daddy right by a Vita-chamber so that you can't die and can kill it with your wrench' thing, so I had the worst of both worlds. The other bit I hate is becoming a big daddy because that whole bit is slow, tedious and bloody idiotic.

BioShock haters I take your points, the game might not have been for you, but really you have to get to that Twist of the game. It's such a crazy OMFG moment. Up there in the most defining moments of gaming for me.

I found that the narrative was too similar to System Shock 2 just with a fresh coat of paint. **SPOILERS AHEAD** For example, following the mystery voice who you think is your ally - no wait it's not. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the game but that plot twist was lessoned by the fact it felt too familiar.

I've played it twice, first time as a good guy then as the *******, being good all the way through is a lot harder especially in the middle part of the game as you don't have anywhere near the health or power ups as you would if you play the baddie. I will admit i played the xbox version (my pc is almost up to the task but i lose too much eye candy) and i thought the game was brilliant, while it does drag a bit at the end i used this time to do a lot of research and get those last few achievments.....

Anyone who thought this was "really good" should play System Shock 2 then come back to me.

Although to be fair most of the people who played Bioshock won't be able to play System Shock 2, because System Shock 2 wasn't made to be played on a twin-stick controller, with your feet. Thus it is difficult to get on with if, for instance, your idea of "aiming" is to stand on the spot, swivelling gracefully around one axis at a time. Then overshooting. And overcorrecting. And generally acting like a complete tool, which is what consoles make you do.

I loved Bioshock, and I've played it through at least four times since I first completed it. Playing on the hardest setting with vita chambers disabled really improved the combat for me because I found I had to plan every fight: running in and shooting with whatever gun I had out at the time didn't work. Also big daddies became a real challenge, and having vita chambers disabled not only removed the game-ruining flaw mentioned in the article, it also meant I could see how my planning worked out then (after I died) modify the plan and try to improve it. Disabling vita chambers made the game harder but also much more fun, and I'm glad they added this option.

I also liked the second game a lot, though most people seem to think it was bland. The environments were less varied, and they're less memorable too, but the combat was improved in several ways, including the inclusion of more options for traps and ambushes, which worked perfectly with the style of playing I was used to from the first game - I went straight to hard and turned off respawning. There was no real twist, but I liked the choices given and the variety of endings. If anything bioshock 2 suffers because it lacks the originality of the first - but it's impossible to reproduce that originality without making a completely different game that has nothing to do with the first. I'm happy to accept that it's more of rapture, personally, and that's why I bought the sequel - I fell in love with the city the first time around, and it was great to see more of it. Even knowing what became of the place, if I were given the chance to holiday in rapture before the fall, I'd be right there.

Originally Posted by Phil RhodesAnyone who thought this was "really good" should play System Shock 2 then come back to me.

Although to be fair most of the people who played Bioshock won't be able to play System Shock 2, because System Shock 2 wasn't made to be played on a twin-stick controller, with your feet. Thus it is difficult to get on with if, for instance, your idea of "aiming" is to stand on the spot, swivelling gracefully around one axis at a time. Then overshooting. And overcorrecting. And generally acting like a complete tool, which is what consoles make you do.

I played System Shock 2 and I still think BioShock is pretty good, on the whole. Weaknesses, sure, but System Shock 2 wasn't perfect either. Nostalgia always stops us looking back at SS2 fairly.

Originally Posted by CardJoeI played System Shock 2 and I still think BioShock is pretty good, on the whole. Weaknesses, sure, but System Shock 2 wasn't perfect either. Nostalgia always stops us looking back at SS2 fairly.

BioShock was pretty good, it was just heavily-nerfed for the console crowd and that's a massive shame.

The same thing applies to Far Cry 2 - not trying to be the same kind of game at all, of course, but I interpreted it as a spirited attempt to do something rather special that was destroyed by the demands of five year olds with Playstations.

Originally Posted by Phil RhodesBioShock was pretty good, it was just heavily-nerfed for the console crowd and that's a massive shame.

The same thing applies to Far Cry 2 - not trying to be the same kind of game at all, of course, but I interpreted it as a spirited attempt to do something rather special that was destroyed by the demands of five year olds with Playstations.

As you may have realised, I resent this.

I don't agree at all. The flaws in Bioshock, highlighed in this article, have nothing to do with the demands of catering to console-owning demographics. You're just using console owners as a scapegoat rather than giving due thought to why the flaws were present and what should have been done to correct them.

Consider the flaws again: wonky shooting, repetitive later sections, typical final boss - none of these are features that can be said to appeal to console gamers, so blaming the console demographic for their appearance is just silly.

I suspect the causes of these problems were a lack of experience in developing tight FPS controls, tight release deadlines and an understandably less-than-perfect combination of ambition and imagination.

Also, your description of console gamers as "five year olds" is a bit weak and, if I may say so (with irony fully intended), a bit childish.